A Test of Different Incentives and How Effectively They Motivate Walking Behaviour

NCT ID: NCT06395233

Last Updated: 2024-05-02

Basic Information

• Recruitment Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING
• Clinical Phase: NA
• Total Enrollment: 300 participants
• Study Classification: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Start Date: 2024-04-29
• Study Completion Date: 2024-07-29

Brief Summary

This study aims to test the effectiveness of different types of incentives to motivate walking among people who use a tracker app. App users will be randomly allocated to three groups, Group 1 will received assured incentives in the form of points per minute of walking, Group 2 will received non-assured incentives in the form of prize draw tickets, one ticket per minute of walking and Group 3 will receive a combination of the two.

App-users will be invited to join the study and those who consent to joining will track their walking activity for 12 weeks using the BetterPoints app. Participants will also be asked to complete a survey at the start and end of the study period to assess motivation and responsiveness to reward.

At the end of the 12 weeks intervention period, changes in minutes of walking from the start of the study to three follow up time points will be assessed and compared between groups. Total minutes of walking will also be compared between groups. Differences in reported levels of autonomous motivation will be assessed between the start and end of the study and between groups.

Detailed Description

It is well established that physical activity reduces risks of common noncommunicable diseases. It is predicted that 65 million people in the United Kingdom will use a smartphone by 2025. With such reach, mobile apps show promise as an intervention to promote physical activity. Although systematic reviews suggest that financial incentives are effective in encouraging physical activity, their cost effectiveness at population level is still unknown. Studies combining apps and incentives suggest that the size of the incentive is not as important as the type, timing and content, which has implications for the affordability of interventions.

Two types of incentive used in apps are assured rewards that are earned per step/minute of physical activity, and lottery incentives, where activity is rewarded with more entries to prize draws. Whether assured or won in a lottery, rewards are in the form of a digital currency that can then be redeemed for shopping vouchers or donated to charity.

The cost of giving out assured rewards is dependent upon the number of users and their level of activity. With lottery-based approaches, costs can be fixed. That is, the prize(s) in the lottery are fixed regardless of the number of users and their activity. However, this means the expected win per user per activity falls with more users and users being more active. The evidence comparing lottery-based incentives is limited. Patel and colleagues compared different lottery conditions over 13 weeks and found that a combined approach offering an 18% chance of winning $5 and 1% chance of winning $50, was more effective than a high frequency-low pay out or jackpot. No research could be found that directly compared lottery-based approaches with assured incentives. This is the gap which the current trial aims to fill.

The present study aims to assess the efficacy of an assured vs lottery vs combined incentive in fostering physical activity. Insights from the study could help develop scalable, cost-effective interventions to improve public health outcomes.

Conditions

Physical Inactivity

Study Design

• Allocation Method: RANDOMIZED
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Primary Study Purpose: PREVENTION
• Blinding Strategy: DOUBLE

Study Groups

Group one: Assured Incentives

Group 1: Assured (Points only): Participants will be able to earn 10 points for each 10 minutes of walking. Every minute will count, the participant does not have to walk for 10 consecutive minutes to receive the points. Once a person has accumulated 10 minutes of walking exercise, their points will be awarded. This will be capped at 40 points per day, i.e. the participant can earn 10 BetterPoints up to four times a day by doing 40 minutes of walking.

Group Type: EXPERIMENTAL

BetterPoints App

Intervention Type: DEVICE

The BetterPoints app is a smartphone application that uses incentives and gamification to motivate physical activity.

Group 2: Non Assured Incentives

Group 2: Non-Assured (Lottery tickets only): Participants will be able to earn one lottery ticket for each 10 minutes of walking. This is accrued and awarded in the same way as the points condition. It is capped at four tickets per day.

Group Type: EXPERIMENTAL

BetterPoints App

Intervention Type: DEVICE

The BetterPoints app is a smartphone application that uses incentives and gamification to motivate physical activity.

Group 3: Combined

Group 3: Combined (Combined points/tickets): Participants in group 3 will be able to earn 5 points and one lottery ticket for 10 minutes of walking. The daily lottery in this condition will be for 500 BetterPoints (rather than 1000 BetterPoints in group 2) and therefore each ticket will have an expected value (EV) of 5 BetterPoints. Participants will be able to earn points and tickets in this way for up to 40 minutes of walking per day.

Group Type: EXPERIMENTAL

BetterPoints App

Intervention Type: DEVICE

The BetterPoints app is a smartphone application that uses incentives and gamification to motivate physical activity.

Interventions

BetterPoints App

The BetterPoints app is a smartphone application that uses incentives and gamification to motivate physical activity.

Intervention Type: DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

Existing users of the BetterPoints app. Not in sponsored programmes.

Exclusion Criteria

BetterPoints app users who are under 18. BetterPoints app users who are enrolled in programmes sponsored by local authorities.

• Minimum Eligible Age: 18 Years
• Eligible Sex: ALL
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Sponsors

University College, London

OTHER

Sponsor Role: lead

Responsible Party

Responsibility Role: SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Hannah McCarthy, MA

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

University College, London

Central Contacts

Hannah McCarthy, MA

Role: CONTACT

hannah.mccarthy.16@ucl.ac.uk

07487680514

Abigail Fisher, PhD

Role: CONTACT

abigail.fisher@ucl.ac.uk

020 7679 1722

Other Identifiers

18-IHIREC

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id